








a « o ' ,0-^ 

T"* ■or ^ • ^^ < '^ •<*• . 
-> ^<>/^^\/ "o^^^-/ \-^f:*.*^ - 

































>■ ,^^^^/>.^ *^. .^ •S 































lis • <y V, -^ 















.^' 



.0^ 



.^'\ 



''-^*'--\<^ 



LETTERS '2-V—^\^ 

ON LyO^'y'^it-i^ , 

OUR AFFAIRS 

WITH 



w- SPAIN. 



BY JAMES CHEETHAM. 



NEW-YORK : 

PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR. 
1804. 



S9UTHWICK AND UARDCASTLE, FBIXTERS, 
NO. 3, WALL-STREET. 



LETTERS, &c. 



New-York, September 24, 1804. 
LETTER, NO I. 

X HE United States seem to be involved with Spain 
in a misunderstanding of which our citizens in general 
have but an imperfect knowledge. We purpose to no- , 
tice the causes of this misunderstanding between the two 
countries, and, that we mav acquit ourselves, in some 
measure, to the satisfaction of the reader, in the discussi- 
on of subjects in their nature extremely intricate, respect 
will be paid to perspicuity and conciseness. 

Before, however, we advance to the business imme- 
diately before us, it may not be useless to advert to cor- 
relative facts and diplomatic artifices. 

Until recently we had consoled ourselves with the 
pleasing reflection, that we were at peace with all the 
world,* and,apart from the aggressions committed by the 
British ships of war at Sandy Hook, thatit was not like- 
ly our repose would be speedily and materially interrupt- 
ed. It was not generally, if at all, understood, that dif- 
ferences of a serious nature existed to menace our 
tranquillity with Spain. It was presumed, and the pre- 

*The exception of Tripoli is too trifling for particular notice. 



sumption was a fair one, that his Catholic Majesty, still 
adhering to good faith, was at least willing to preserve 
and continue those relations of amity which have hither- 
to happily subsisted between the two countries. We 
were mistaken. 

The treaty of San Lorenzo et Real, formed between 
the United States and Spain in 1795, and ratified by our 
government cotemporaneous with the date of the ratifi- 
cation of the British Treaty, provides for the ascertain- 
ment of the losses which our commercial citizens had 
sustained in the capture of their vessels and cargoes by 
the subjects of his Catholic Majesty. Article 21, estab- 
lishes a board of commissioners, who were to assemble 
and continue their sittings at Philadelphia, receive 
claims, and decide upon them as to their justice and 
amount. Their decisions were to be final and conclu- 
sive in respect to both. The duration of the board was 
limited to eighteen months^ from the first meeting. Their 
powers therefore ceased early in the year 1 798. 

But Spanish spoliation on the commerce of the Unit- 
ed States, did not cease with the duration of the board. 
Spanish subjects continued to capture our ships, and his 
Catholic Majesty's courts were ever ready to pronounce 
condemnation upon both vessels and cargoes. 

This avidity for capture and alacrity to condemn, 
soon involved the United States in commercial losses 
equal In moment to those, for the adjustment and refund- 
ing of which the treaty of San Lorenzo et Real had 
made correct and ample provision. 

The claims which the United States now had on his 
Catholic Majesty for captures, were of two kinds j those 



effected by the subjects and ships of Spain, and others 
made by the citizens and vessels of France, but which, 
in repugnance to the law of nations, and the statutes and 
usages of Spain, had been carried into Spanish ports, 
whei-e they were condemned and sold, and the booty 
shared by the captors. The joint captures and adjudi- 
cations amount to several millions of dollars. As we 
advance in the discussion I will specify the mimber of 
vessels and cargoes jointly and separately condemned, 
and hazard a conjecture as to their probable amount. 

Solicitous for the unity and prosperity of the nation 
over which he illustriously presides,and to do justice to 
all classes of its citizens, Mr. Jefferson, at an early pe- 
riod of his administration, turned his attention to the 
best means of vindicating the rights and restoring the 
captured property of his fellow citizens. 

Accordingly, in the summer of 1801, f the Presi- 
dent caused instructions to be forwarded to Mr. Pinck- 
ney, our Minister at Madrid, to urge to the Spanish go- 
vernment the justice and necessity of redress for our citi- 
zens who had fuflfered by unlawful captures and con- 
demnations effected under Spanish authority, as well as 
by wrongful captures made by French citizens, and de- 
cisions pronounced upon them by French consuls within 
the jurisdiction of Spain. The consequent discussion 
began by Mr. Pinckney with the government of Spain, 
issued in the convention concluded at Madrid, the 11th 
of August, 1802. 

This convention distinctly notices the two sorts of 
claims to which I have adverted ; those ibunded in un- 
lawful captures and condemnations effected under colour 

t But a few months after his inauguration. 



6 

of Spanish authority, and captures made by French citi- 
zens, and wrongful decisions pronounced upon them by 
the consuls of that nation, within the precincts of Spain. 

The convention, in the former case, establishes a 
board of commissoners, to receive claims and de- 
cide, in the last resort, upon their justice and amount: 
— In the latter, no provision is made. The dis- 
cussion, unabandoned, was postponed to a future period 
on account of the impossibility of agreeing upon precise 
stipulations. 

Thus concluded and signed by the respectve plenipo- 
tentiaries, the convention was transmitted to the Presi- 
dent of the United States, who availed himself of the 
iirst opportunity to lay it before the Senate. 
• 

And here it may be proper to correct a very gross 
misrepresentation, which originally appeared in the 
United States Gazette, and which has been copied 
into several federal prints. According to this the Pre- 
sident, averse from the ratification of the convention, 
and disregardful of his duty, kept the instrument in his 
pocket six months after it was received, and did not af- 
ter all lay it before the Senate in the session of 1802 — 3 
until, during its continuance, it was too late to ratify it. 

I have already remarked, that the convention bears 
date " Madrid, August 11, 1802." It could scarcely 
have reached Washington before the following Decem- 
ber. Early in 1 803, it was laid before the Senate. I will 
now glance at the cause of the failure of its ratification 
during this session. 

The reader will recollect that during this memorable 



session the interdiction of our right of deposite at New- 
Orleans was first agitated in Congress, and he cannot 
have forgotten the inflammatory speeches which were 
delivered on this occasion in die Senate by Messieurs 
Ross, Morris, &c. There evidently appeared, on the 
federal side of the house, a disposition to embroil us un- 
necessarily with a foreign power. 

At this crisis, the Convention in question was taken 
up in the Senate. The minority, to a man, was opposed 
to its ratification. Events persuade us that the opposi- 
tion was dictated with a view to widen our differences. 
It seems to have been supposed,by the opposition,that a 
refusal to ratify would increase our difficulties and mul- 
tiply the chances for war. Their numbers were count- 
ed ; they arranged themselves in close order ; they op- 
posed the ratification. 

To ratify treaties, a majority of two-thirds are neces- 
sary. On the question to ratify the Convention, it was 
found that the federal IVIembers of the House exceeded 
one-third. The ratification was therefore negatived. 
In the rejection, the federal members of the Senate were 
joined bj' a republican. 

Agreeably to the rules of the Senate, a member voting 
in the minority may move for a reconsideration. The 
republican member availed himself of this privilege. — 
The question to reconsider was carried in the affima- 
tive ; but as the republican members of the Senate were 
less than two-thirds of the House, the further consider- 
ation of the Convention was necessarily postponed to the 
following session. These remarks are made, not so much 
to censure the past, as to refute the gross calumny on the 
executive,which has been industriowslydisseminated in 



several of the federal printSj and to account for the dela}' 
of the ratification, of which the Marquis D'Yrujo, in 
his Graviora Ma?ie)it, so ingeniously complains.* 

At the last session of Congress, there was an acces- 
sion to the republican strength in the Senate. The con- 
vention was therefore ratified. 

The ratification was forwarded to our minister at Mad- 
rid, where it was supposed its arrival would be immedi- 
ately succeeded by a corresponding act on the part of his 
Catholic Majesty. It is understood that, with the rati- 
fication, instructions were forwarded to Mr. Pinckney 
to urge the claims of our commercial citizens, whose 
vessels and cargoes had been captured by French ves- 
sels and wrongly condemned in Spanish ports by consuls 
of the Fre7ich nation. Provision, it will be recollected, 
was already made in the convention for the restitution of 
the property of our citizens, captured by Spanish ships 
and unlawfully condemned by the tribunals of his CathO' 
lie Majesty, 

Here, for the present, it is necessary to quit American 
information to witness a scene of Spanish diplomatic 
intrigue, of which several of the federal editors of Phi- 
ladelphia have been the dupes. 

The first information we received from Madrid, came 
through the Spanish Minister, D'Yrujo, in the form of 
^'■extracts of letters''' from his Catholic Majesty's Euro- 
pean dominions. They are diversified according to the 
genius of D'Yrujo and the projects of his court. These 
extracts of letters are the sorriest of the diplomatic arts, 
and CO intimately are we acquainted with them from 

* See Appendix, No. III. 



9 

their frequent use among us, that they have ceased to 
produce efFects other than of contempt, except with 
those who with avidity seize even upon the enemies of 
foreign powers to oppose and asperse the best of go- 
vernments. 

Of this unworthy disposition of several of our con- 
temporary editors, D'Yrujo availed himself to unfold, 
in the form of '''■extracts of letter s^^"* the hostile projects 
of his Catholic Majesty, as well as to vilify our govern- 
ment. After the very singular occurrence with Major 
Jackson, it will not be doubted that D'Yrujo wrote 
himself the letters which have been palmed upon the 
public as coming from Spain, 

These letters represent our government as unjust and 
ambitious ! Unjust^ in the reclamations that have been 
made of the captured property of our Commercial Citi- 
zens ; ambitions^ in the correct limits that have beca 
assigned by Congress to the Eastern boundary of Louisi- 
ana. These allegations, which were subsequently in- 
corporated into D'Yrujo's defence of Spain, under the 
signature oiGraviora Manejit^ shall be hereafter examin- 
ed. 

Encouraged by the federal Editors of Philadelphia, 
D'Yrujo proceeded from extracts of letters to his grave 
defence, and from his defence to an attempt to corrupt 
Major Jackson and alienate his affections from our go* 
vermnent* 



10 

New- York, September 25, 1804. 

LETTER, NO. II. 

AN attempt so extraordinary and reprehensble, upon 
the fidelity of a citizen to his government, it was natu- 
ral to conclude, had not been made without some sort of 
previous encouragement. 

Major Jackson had occupied for a series of years the 
place of Surveyor of the Customs of the Port of Phila- 
delphia. His attachment to, and the intemperate zeal 
he had manifested in favour of, the unpopular and preju- 
dicial administration of Mr. Adams, had secured to him 
a long uninterrupted enjoyment of this easy and lucra- 
tive office. The ebullitions of his zeal, when penal sta- 
tutes repressed public opinion, broke out into acts incon- 
sistent with internal quiet, and peculiarly offensive to 
the citizens of Philadelphia, to whom he was politically 
opposed. His conduct had stamped his character with 
fierce and unyielding opposition to the present admini- 
stration, and therefore, about two years after the election 
of Mr. Jefferson to the Presidency, it was deemed just 
and expedient to remove him from office. He was ac- 
»cordingly removed. 

Immediately after the removal, we found Major Jack- 
son at the head of a Philadelphia gazette, with the title 
of the " Commercial and Political Register" — so sud- 
denly had party zeal metamorphosed the Surveyor of the 
Port of Philadelphia into the Editor of a Daily Print. 

The first acts of the editorial career of major Jack- 
son, were unwarranted philippics against the administra- 
tion b)^ which he had been removed. Fired with re- 
sentment ^nd srotining under the lash of retributive 



11 

I 
justice, invective succeeded to invective, gradually 
ascending the scale of bitterness 'and reproach. The 
President was depictured as feeble; yet prolific in 
schemes of gigantic mischief ; as incompetent to the due 
execution of the duties of his station; still with the art 
and ingenuity of drawing the affections of the people to 
their government. The Presidential Portrait of the Ex- 
Surveyor had this of inability in execution and design ; 
while the intention and object of the artist were to 
represent Mr. Jefferson as weak and wicked, he appear- 
ed energetic and amiable. 

The original attachment of Major Jackson to an ad- 
ministration the reverse of that under which we live ; 
his transparent resentment, and incessant invectives, 
had encouraged D'Yrujo to infer political infidelity of 
the blackest hue.*, 

* Major Jackson was not the only editor in Philadelphia 
©f whose opposition to our government the Spanish minis- 
ter hoped to profit. In publishing the " extracts of letters" 
he was joined by Relf, editor Of the Philadelphia Gazette, 
and by the United States Gazette, edited by two political 
zealots from Connecticut . The latter paper was formerly 
patronized by Mi\ Liston, the British minister ! The Phi- 
ladelphia Gazette and the United States' Gazette, to use a 
sea metaphor, shot a-head of D'Yrujo. The " extracts of 
letters" were published in the respective papers accom- 
panied with editorial remarks of a very aggravating na- 
ture. Where he was deficientin'aspersing our government, 
his deficiency was abundantly supplied by the respective 
editors of the two papers. Thus encouraged, D'Yrujo 
brought forward his defence of Spain under the signature 
of " Graviora Manait" This obtained a ready insertion m 
Relf 's Gazette, and in the United States' Gazette, altheugh 
the editors of these papers, according to their own admis- 
sions, knew that it came from a Spanish official source, and 
could not but perceive the misrepresentations which it 
contained. But this was by no means an hinderance to in- 
♦ sertion. To every blow put in by D'Yrujo, they added 
two. They were pleased to see new opposition to our 



It is mentioned, however, with great satisfaction, 
that opposition to our government could not induce him 
to sell his services to the Minister of a foreign power. 
His rejection and exposition of the corrupt overture, has 
conferred upon him an honor as durable as the memory 
of the disgrace of the minister who made it. 

But, apart from persons! considerations, the perfidious 
attempt of D'Yrujo is an offence. 

First ; against the United States : 
Second ; the law of nations 



It is a position universally admitted, and a deviation 
froth it is co-extensively condemned, that a minister of 
a foreign power cannot of right intermeddle in the 
affairs of the government by which he is accredited. — 
Numerous examples might be drawn from writers on 
the law of nations, as well as those on the principles of a 
sovereign and independent state, corroborative of the 
tnaxim, but it is too self-evident to require illustration. 
The principle itself is plain. Interference produces fac- 
tions, and these, nourished by the wealth and backed by 
the power of a foreign nation, might subvert the govern- 
ment. 

The commencement of D'Yrujo's insidious remarks 
to Major Jackson, are not only an impertinent inter- 
meddling with our government, but an insulting and out- 
rageous criticism upon it. 

government, and indifferent whence it arose. Where 
D'Yrujo's complaints were indistinct, they made them pal- 
pable and glaring. In a word, their conduct had induced 
him to pres\mne upon their infidelity to our government 
and readiness to serve his Catholic majesty. See Jppeii' 
(fix, Aw. 2. 



15 

*' By apolitical intolerance^ he says, "youhave been forc- 
*' ed to adopt a profession different from what you have 
*' heretofore pursued, but it is one in which you are qua- 
'■'• lijied to be very useful ! I observe by certain opinions 
*' expressed in your paper, that you consider the present 
" administration — -for Ixuillnot call it Government ! — 
*' as disinclined to go to war with Spain, See." 

Considering language so extraneous from the functions 
of a resident minister, and offensive to the people and 
government of the United States, it is difficult to keep 
one's temper within moderate bounds. 

Intolerance ! It will not be affirmed that the Minister 
cf his Catholic Majesty had even the shadow of a right 
to express to a Citizen of the United States, this opini- 
on of his Government, especially when the quo animo is 
considered. That this was hostile will be conceded when 
the tenor of his remarks to Major Jackson, as detailed 
in his deposition, is viewed in all its aspects. Reason- 
ing upon this, it irresistibly appears that the design of 
the Spanisli Minister was to embody and foment faction. 
Nothing is so unpropitious to our freedom and indepen- 
dence as machinations of this kind. The imaginary dan- 
gers apprehended by some from the clashing opinions of 
our citizens, vanish before them. Pursuing justice 
through all her obvious courses, we may defy attacks 
from without, but it requires the sternest virtue to resist 
the corrupt artifices of a minister within. 



u 



New-York, September 2G, 1804. 

LETTER, NO. III. 

BUT if our indignation be excited by the Marquis 
D'Yrujo's accusation of Intolerance, it will mount as we 
reflect upon his accompanying observations. 

'■^■^■'^ovir administration^'' says the Marquis, ("fori 
will not call them goverjiment*^ ! ) 

This contemptuous expression in an interview with 
the Editor of a Daily Gazette, solicited to tamper with 
his allegiance to his government, will be more correctly 
conceived than delineated. To a minister of a foreign 
power, the form and nature of the government to which 
he is sent, are matters perfectly immaterial, and there 
is no relation between Nation and Nation more clearly 
established than that both are irrelative to the purposes 
of his mission. The right in this case to censure, in- 
volves the right to resist, which cannot be admitted in 
the most trivial degree in any wise to appertain to a resi- 
dent minister of a foreign power. 

Admitting then, for the sake of an Inference only, 
that our government is as mean as the reflection implies, 
are wc, in addition to the supposed misfortune, to be in- 
sulted by the criticisms of a foreign minister ? 

An interference so indelicate, an opinion at once so ex- 
traneous and off"ensive, was not to have been expected 
from the minister of his Catholic Majesty. Petulant re- 



16 

crimination and retort will not however be indulged ; 
nor is it necessary to write commendations on our go- 
vernment, which, with unexampled solicitude, conciliates 
our affections, cherishes our freedom, preserves our 
quiet, increases our prosperity, and augments our 
strength ; but I cannot help observing that the intelli- 
gent citizens of the United States had not expected les- 
sons from the minister of a despotic prince on the maxims 
and practice of a free government! 

The means by which attempts were made to seduce 
Major Jackson from fealty to his government, were but 
litde less odious than the instruments by which it was 
intended he should contend against it in the service of 
Spain. It is asserted by the Marquis D'Yrujo in the 
interview, that " He had no doubt that war was the ob- 
ject of our administration, for he had received a letter 
from New-Orleans, dated on the 25th of April last, 
which stated that there was a letter in that place in Mr, 
Jefferson's hand writing, dated March last, which declar- 
ed that if the settlers between the Mississippi and the 
Rio Perdido would raise the American colours, they 
should be supported."* 

The Marquis D'Yrujo either believed or disbelieved 
the existence of such a letter ; if he disbelieved it, how 
will he justify the calumny ? If he believed it, we have 
it from Mr. Jefferson that he neither wrote, directed to 
he written, nor was privy to the writing of such a letter. 

But I conjecture, although it may be deemed inde- 
■corous to express the conjecture, that the Marquis 
D'Yrujo did not believe tliat the President wrote the letter 

* See appendix, No. 3. 



16 

which he thus insidiously imputes to him. I conceive 
the attempt to have been a diplomatic artifice designed 
increase in Major Jackson that opposition to govern- 
ment which the minister had gladly witnessed, and to 
inflame the criminal resentment which he hoped to kin- 
dle. If I am right in this conjecture the conduct of the 
Marquis would appear still more reprehensible. 

This censurable conduct is heightened, and that opi- 
nion corroborated, by a previous publication, of whose 
source we cannot now entertain a doubt. It had already 
been stated in Mr. Relf's Philadelphia Gazette, that 
the President had written letters exciting revolt in the 
territory between the Rivers Mississippi and Perdido. 

Independent, however, of the disavowal of Mr. Jef- 
ferson, which is sufficient for every purpose, there are 
internal reasons which refute the calumny. 

It might be enough to mention the character of the 
President, who was never known to stoop to intrigue 
derogating from its purity, or injui-ious to the honor or 
interest of his country. 

But lest it should not, I may remark, that to excite re- 
volt in the territory between the rivers Mississippi and 
Perdido would be treason against the Union. This ter- 
ritory is included within the ceded Louisiana. The act 
of Congress of February 24th, 1804, authorising the 
President '^to erect the shores, waters, and inlets of the 
** bay and river Mobile, and of the other rivers, creeks, 
*' inlets, and bays, emptying into the Gulf of Mexico, 
** east of the said river Mobile, and -west thereof to the 
*' Pascagola, inclusive, into a separate district and to 
** establish," &c. expressly recognizes this territory in 



17 

fact, as well as by name, with the exception of the Per* 
dido, which, although not mentioned, is well under* 
stood. There was no occasion, therefore, for the Pre- 
sident to offer " protection to the people of this territory 
in case of raising the American Colours," for these 
were already the legitimate standard of the country. 

To effect his seductive purposes, to alienate the affec« 
tions of Major Jackson from his country, and enlist his 
services against it in behalf of his Catholic Majesty, it 
then appears that the Marquis D'Yrujo branded the go- 
vernment with intolerance, spoke of it as unworthy of 
the name^ and, in public and private, charged the execu- 
tive with a treasonable offence' — with a plot to stir up 
the people of the United States to revolt. 

To crown his detraction, addressing himself to Ma- 
jor Jackson, he says, 

*' If you will consent to take elucidations on the sub- 
" ject from me, I will furnish them, and I will make you 
*' any acknowledgments »'* 

Can this language be mistaken ? The subject was the 
unadjusted differences between the United States and 
his Catholic Majesty, on which he had already remark- 
ed that our government wished to go to war^ and in case 
of which he had menaced us with "three ships of the 
** line and six frigates to the Mississippi ; three ships of 
*' the line and six frigates to the Chesapeak," and the like 
number to '* Sandy Hook." 

It cannot be mistaken when the language is viewed in 
all its aspects. 

€ 



18 

" I consider you, sir, said the Marquis, as a gentlc- 
*' man, a man of letters, and a man of honor." 

*' By a political intolerance you have been forced to 
" adopt a profession different from what you have here- 
*' tofore pursued-^i^z/^ it is one in which you are qualified 
** to be very useful P"^ 

Recollecting that Major Jackson was an oppositionist, 
and had already published, with acclamation, the " ex- 
** tracts of letters^'' he then, supposing it would be agree- 
able, sallies out in abuse of the government, and con- 
cludes with offering him " any acknowledgments," in 
case he would enter into his views. Was not this as 
blunt a tender of a bribe as one gentleman could well 
make to another ? 

Seek for any intention in the courted interview but 
seduction, or any other means but bribery^ and you will 
be disappointed. 

Suppose the " any acknowledgments" were but in- 
tended as a compensation for the omission of advertise- 
ments to make room for the " elucidations" of the Mar- 
quis, and it will appear that the delicately solicited in- 
terview, the courtly urbanity exhibited, the flattering 
personal compliments paid, and the pecuniary offer to 
any amount, were unnecessary. 

In the first place, it is unusual to tender on the one 
side, or request or receive on the other, pecuniary com- 
pensation for communications of essays or articles of in- 
telligence ; and in the second. Major Jackson had already 
gone, in opposing the government in favour of the pro- 
jects of Spain, as far as he well could, without allying 



19 

himself with the minister of a foreign power in faction 
and revolt. He had reached the 7ie plus ultra of consti- 
tutional opposition. One step farther would either have 
carried him into the arms of a foreign nation, or sub- 
jected him to the penalty of the law. 

The former alternative he avoided, but did not resist 
the overture in a manner suited to its offence. In such 
cases there is a mode of dignified repulse which reason 
and custom authorize, and personal honor and perma- 
nent national welfare dictate, but with which Major 
Jackson seems to have been unacquaijited, 

Vattel, in his chapter on the " rights, privileges, and 
*' immunities of Ambassadors, and other public minis- 
*' ters," is explicit on this subject. He says, " if a so-* 
*' vereign minister offends a citizen, the latter may op- 
*' pose him without departing from the respect due to 
*' the character, and give him a lesson which shall both 
*' efface the stain of the outrage, and expose the author 
*' of it. The person offended may further prefer a com- 
*' plaint to his sovereign, who Vv^ill demand of the minis- 
*' ter's master a just satisfaction."* 

Waving his right to give the Marquis such a lesson 
as would efface the stain of the outrage^ Major Jackson 
very properly complained to the President, in whom, in 
cases of this nature, the sovei-eign authority is lodged. 

I am satisfied that every thing will be done by the 
Executive which the honor and interest of the countrj' 
require. It may not, however, be amiss to see what 
steps, in cases of this nature, the Law of Nations war- 
rants. 

• Law of Natigns, New-York Edit. p. 158. 



20 

* The custom/ says the same excellent author, * of 

* keeping every where ministers continually resident, 
' is now so strongly established, that the refusal of a 

* conformity to it would, without very good reasons, 

* give offence. These reasons may arise from particu- 
' lar conjectures ; but there are also common reasons 

* always subsisting, and such as relate to the constitu- 

* tion of a government and state of a nation. The Re^ 

* publics have often very good reasons of the latter kind, 
' to excuse themselves from continually suffering foreign 

* ministers, who corrupt the citizens in order to gain 

* them over to their masters, to the great prejudice of the 
' Republic, and fomenting of the parties, &c."* 

This extract is in point. The Marquis D'Yrujo has 
Endeavoured to corrupt a citizen, and foment parties* 
How far, or whether this odious offence would excuse 
the United States from admitting among us, in future, a 
minister from his Catholic Majesty, is not made a ques-. 
tion, for I am of those who deem reciprocal residencies 
of this kind as indispensible. Besides, Spain may be. 
innocent though her minister be guilty. But as corrupt-, 
ing citizens and fomenting parties by a foreign minister 
are acknowledged offences against the Law of Nations, 
let us see what punishment that law prescribes. 

Speaking of the sacred character of ambassadors and 
ministers, and the privileges which thence result, Vattel 
says, 

* Notwithstanding this privilege, when the ambassa- 

* dor himself has violated the Law of Nations, by form-. 
' ing, or countenancing, plots, or conspiracies, against 

* the st^te, his papers may be seized, for discovering the 

t J-avr of Nations, p- 5H. 






* whole secret, and knowing the accomplices ; on such 

* an exigency, he may be personally put under arrest, ' 

* and interrogated.'''^ 

It were, in a degree, hardihood to say that the at- 
tempt of the Marquis D'Yrujo to corrupt Major Jackson 
mid foment parties among us, is exactly analogous to, or 
comes precisely within the meaning of, the passage just 
cited; the difference, however, if any, is so trivial, that 
it is scarcely distinguishable. Certainly the tenor of his 
conduct evinces that he has " countencmced^'* if he has 
not '"'■formed^ plots against the state ;'''' and in regard to 
the extent, we are left to conjecture. To be sure we 
are not greatly alarmed, nor am I clear that the attempt 
to form^ and the actuallij countenancing " plots," arc 
of sufficient magnitude to warrant the seizure of his pa^ 
pers or the putting of his person under arrest. These 
measures are confided to the Executive, who will do 
what is right in the case. But I may be allowed to say 
that so signal an offence merits a signal punishment. 

* ^aw of Nations, p. 561. 



!.V. 



2^ 

New-York, October 1, 1804. 

LETTER, NO. IV. 

HAVING finished our introductory observations, we 
proceed to consider the reasons assigned by his Catho- 
lic Majesty for refusing to ratify the convention of 1 802. 
These are, 

*' First. That time be allowed his Catholic Majesty 
" to give notice to his subjects at home and abroad of 
** the convention, Avhich has not been done, as his Ca- 
*' tholic Majesty considered it totally abandoned by the 
*' American government. 

** Second. That the article which it contains relating 
*^ to prizes carried into Spanish ports by French crui- 
** sers, be totally expunged, and all claims on the Spa- 
" nish government on that account be forever relin- 
*' quished. 

*' Third. That the act of the United States of Fe- 
*' bruary 24, 1804, authorizing the President to esta- 
*■'■ blish one or more ports on the Mobile River, be im- 
*' mediately repealed." 

These reasons are assigned in the diplomatic extracts 
of letters^ and the subsequent defence of Spain by the 
Marquis D'Yrujo, under the signature of Graviora Ma- 
nent. Other existing causes induce the belief that they 
are correctly stated. 

The former branch of the first objection is immate- 
rial; perhaps unprecedented, and I cannot imagine 



as 

his Catholic Majesty intends it should be seriously urged 
to our government as an apology for refusing to ratify 
the convention. If the ratification of treaties is to be 
suspended by his Catholic Majesty until he has notified 
his near and distant subjects of their contents, but few 
nations would wish to have or continue relations with 
him. Besides, why this previous notification ? To ob- 
tain the consent of his subjects ? This is not the pre- 
requisite of any government, and yet we cannot perceive 
the force of the objection unless it be wholly founded 
upon this absurdity. 

And the latter part of the objection is but of moment 
as it furnishes ground for misrepresentation to some and 
aspersion to others among us. I believe it was thrown 
out with these views, and they have not been entirely 
unanswered. 

Accounting for the delay of the ratification by our 
government, which Graviora Maneiit is willing to be- * 
lieve authorizes to an infinite period of time a postpone- 
ment on the part of Spain, I mentioned facts which seem 
to have nettled Mr. Coleman, and have called forth a 
reply which affords argument for its own refutation. 

I stated that early in the session of Congress of 180^, 
the minority in the Senate, joined by a republican mem- 
ber, rejected the treaty, and that afterwards, availing 
himself of an article in the rules of the house, he 
moved for a re-consideration of the rejecting vote and 
succeeded in his motion ; but chat still, the republican 
members, failing in number of two-thirds, the constitu- 
tional majority in ratifying treaties, all further consi- 
deration of the convention was postponed to the session 
of 1804. 



'24 

Aware of the inferences necessarily and obviously 
resulting from the premature and unfavourable opposi* 
tiou of the minority, viz. embarrassment to the govern- 
ment and an indefinite postponement of the restoration 
of the adjudicated property of our merchants, Pvlr. Cole- 
man very indiscreetly made the following defence. 

*' It Is admitted on all hands that the convention was 
" signed at Madrid the 11th of August, 1802, and sent 
*' over for ratification. It has been stated in some of 
•' the papers that the President, instead of laying it be- 
*' fore the Senate the first opportunity, kept it in his 
*' pocket an improper length of time.* Whether this 
*' was so we will not undertake to determine, if it was, 
*' circumstances presently to be related, will render the 
*' motive apparent. In the following session of 1802-3, 
*' he submitted the convention to the constitutional 
*' body, the Senate, for ratification. It was accordingly 
'* brought into debate, and after debate, negatived , not 
" however by the addition of a single democratic vote 
*' to the federal votes, as stated in the Citizen, nor was 
" it ownngto the ' factious animosity of those called fe» 
' deral men in the Senate,' as asserted by Duane, but, 
*' if not unanimously, at least very nearly so ; it is be- 



* It is surprising that this calumny, ori;jinally propagated in theUnit- 
e<\ States' Gazette, should be liere repeated 'i>} strong insinuation. We 
hud supposed that our former remarks on this subject were so candid 
and irreiutable as to silence opposition. — If Mr. Coleman has attended 
to nates, his insinuation is witliout an excuse ; if he has not, ignorance 
is an apology inadequate to the otlence. 

I must here repeat, what 1 have in another place stated, that the con- 
vention was signed at Madrid, August the 11th, 180"2. In all probability- 
it did not arrive at Washington earlier than the following December. On 
the 14th February, 1303, the dc'or.te in the Senate on the interdiction of 
our right of deposit at New-Orleans was conmienced. In this debate 
frequent allusion is made to the convention, which must, of course, have 
been some time before the Senate ; how long we cannot exactly say. But 
of this we are certain, that the President could have had no peculiar in- 
ducement for unnecessarily delaying its transmission to that body, and 
wc are persuaded by these facta that no such delay took place. 



Q5 

" lieved the Journals of the Senate, if referred to, will 
" shew the rejection was unanimous.'* 

Assertion may be opposed to assertion, and it may be 
added that the opinion here given is founded in infor- 
mation equal in correctness to mine. There is no such 
thing as deciding between us by reference to authorita- 
tive documents, of which I presume Mr. Coleman was 
aware j for none can have access to the executive jour* 
nals of the Senate, (which are never published) but the 
members. I must insist, however, that the federal 
members of the Senate were joined but by one republi- 
can ; that by this conjunction of usually opposing strength 
the convention was, in the first instance, negatived, and 
that afterwards it was restored to the house and subse- 
quently ratified, as I have in another place stated. 

But there is no occasion to resort, even if we could, 
to the executive jonrnals of the Senate to settle the con- 
troverted point, for Mr. Coleman, searching for argu- 
ments to refute my remarks, has furnished them in abun- 
dance to defeat his own. 

He says, " the convention was accordingly brought 
" into tlebate, and after debate, negatived ; not however 
*' by the addition of a single democratic vote to the fe- 
" deral votes, as stated in the Citizen ; but, if not imo-' 
*^ nimously, at least very nearly so ; it is believed the 
*' journals of the Senate, if referred to, will show the 
" rejection was wnanmow*.'* 

It may excite emotions of surprize that Mr. Coleman 
could not hit upon argument and device more skilful. 
Suppose the ratification of the convention was, in the 
first instance, negatived; I will not say with him, " una- 



26 

" nlmouslij ,^'' but, " nearly so;'''' how will he satisfacto- 
rily account for bringing it again before the house by a 
majoriti/, upon a motion for reconsideration? Taking 
what he deems his safest expression " nearhj unanimous^'* 
and allowing him the best chance to escape from the 
dilemma, it will be admitted that " nearly nnajiimous^^ 
imports, at least, a majority. This is the most favour- 
able point of view in which the sentence can be placed. 

It is conceded that a reconsideration was had, and 
that to effect it requires a majority of the members. Did 
a moiety of those who in the first instance negatived the 
ratification, rescind their vote, and, upon the question 
for reconsideration, shrink from their original purpose ? 
Were they by the stings of conscience, by a sudden and 
transient glance at the distresses of our merchants, alarm- 
ed into acquiescence ? The public will most likely agree 
with me, that those who after previous deliberation, had 
calmly and systematically rejected the convention, would 
not vote for the reconsideration, and unless they did, it 
is evident it could not have taken place. These remarks 
are perhaps sufficient to evince that a majority of the 
members, much less the whole, or nearly so, as asserted 
by J\lr. Coleman, did not negative the ratification. By 
how many short of a majority, the public will judge. 1 
must, however, insist that the rejection was efi'ected 
f:olely by the federal members, aided, as I at first re- 
marked, by one republican vote only, 

I now turn to the noble Marquis D'Yrujo ; but as a 
feeble, a temporising effort is made, in the National In- 
telligencer, to impair public faith in the reasons every 
where assigned fpr his Catholic Majesty's rejection of 
the convention, it may be proper to notice the ill-timed 
and spiritless publication. 



47 

Alter speaking of further " negociation and explana- 
tion," as if in gradual and perpetual sinking there is no 
point of national humiliation and disgrace , Mr. "Smith, 
editor of the National Intelligencer, asks : 

" But is it so clear that the conduct of Spain demands 
" a declaration ofAvarfrom the United States ? To decide 
" this question it is necessary to enquire what that con- 
" duct is. Taking the information of the news-papers 
" (which though it mat/ not be correct, is the only infonna- 
*' tion before the public, and consequently constitutes the 
" only materials on which they can judge) it appears that 
" Spain has refused to ratify the convention for satisfy- 
" ing the claims of our merchants for spoliated property, 
** except on certain conditions. These are so absurd as 
" to render their reality extremely doubtful. Their spe- 
*' cification evidently seems to flow from an interested 
" quarter, and exposes them to suspicion of great exag- 
*' geration." 

To me it is clear that the conduct of Spain does au- 
thorise and render necessary a prompt declaration of 
war from the United States, and it is unaccountable why 
it does not present itself to Mr. Smith in the same as- 
pect.— This gentleman admits that, according to '^ Ne7t>s- 
" Paper information,''^ there are but substantially t^vo 
points in dispute between the United States and his Ca- 
tholic Majesty ; firet, reparation for spoliated property ; 
second, the clashing claims of the two governments in 
relation to the Easterti boundary of Louisiana. I will 
test the soundness of his opinions by his own doctrinca 

t 

Mr. Smith has satitfactorily t.hewn that the River Per- 
dido is the Eastern boundary oi Louisiana, as ceded to 



\is by France, and previously retrocededby Spain to her. 
I^or this our government contends, and from it we can- 
not in my opinion recede without becoming, what we 
never can become, a fief to the Spanish monarchy. Be 
this, however, as it may, it is clear from what he him- 
self has written, that the Perdido is the well settled Eas- 
tern limit of Louisiana* 

There'fis then but one point — ^the unsatisfied and enor- 
mous claims of our merchants. Are these nothing ? 
Is Mr. Smith prepared to yield them to Spanish rapa» 
city and Castilian haughtiness ? I hope not ; but if he is, 
there is virtue and spirit enough in the country to en- 
force them. That these claims are just, I shall in the 
sequel establish. Are they then, to avert war with a 
feeble monarchy, to be relinquished ? 

But we must explain and negociate. Explanatio* 
and negociation are excellent in their place, but it 
ill-comports with national interest and dignity to use 
them as a spaniel. 

What has our attentive and upright minister been do- 
ing at Madrid for near two years ? Explaining and ne- 
gociating, and what he has explained has been purposely 
ravelled, what he has negociated has been insolently un- 
done. Spam has refused to satisfy our claims for spo- 
liated property, and, in addition, has demanded from, our 
government the abrogation of an important law ! Will 
special embassies induce her to be more just, more mild, 
less exorbitant in her demands? Perhaps so, but I 
doubt it, and strong' tion the expediency which 

would dictate them. 

We are however tol r. Smith, in an air of af- 



29 

fected sagacity, that we have before us nothing but news* 
paper information^ which mat/ not be correct, 

I question whether Mr. Smith is faithful to himself 
in the remark, for I am willing to think well of his un- 
derstanding. The news-paper information comes from 
the Marquis D'Yrujo, and although it is an interested 
source, it is backed by circumstances too numerous and 
imposing to resist belief. 

Mr. Pinckney, it is presumed, was charged by our go- 
vernment to demand his passport in case his Catholic 
Majesty refused to accede to suitable stipulations for sa- 
tisfying the claims of our merchants. He has refused, 
and Mr. Pinckney has accordingly demanded the usual 
passport and is now on his way home. 

Apart from the information derived from the Mar- 
quis D'Yrujo, it is well ascertained that the Spanish go- 
vernment claims, what ours will not yield, all that terri- 
tory which lies between Lake Pontchartrain, and the 
River Perdido. 

Of the nature of our commercial claims we have in- 
formation from high and undoubted authority. 

In the debate in the Senate of the United States on 
the interdiction of our right of deposite at New-Orleans, 
Mr. Wright, of Maryland, adverting to the convention 
in question, thus enumerates the aggressions of Spain : 

" They have captured our vessels and imprisoned our 
" seamen. 

" They have permitted the French to fit out priva- 
** teers in their ports to cruise sgainst our commerce. 



30 

" They have permitted French Consuls in Spanish 
** ports to condemn our vessels taken by French crui- 
«*sers."* 

These aggressions were admitted on both sides of the 
house, and the extracts correspond with that news-paper 
information which, with oracular wisdom, Mr. Smith 
says, may be correct. He will allow me to add that it 
is so. V/e recur to the second demand of his Catholic 
Majesty, viz. 

" That the article contained in the convention, relat- 
** ing to prizes carried into Spanish ports, by French 
*' cruisers, be totally expunged, and all claims on the 
** Spanish government on that account, forever relin- 
*'' quished." 

It will he difficult for the most prespicaclous to per^ 
ceive, in the rejection of the convention, aught but de- 
termined hostility on the part of Spain. I declare this 
opinion with freedom, for to me the conclusion is clear 
and irresistible. 

The convention embraces two points distinct for appo- 
site consideration, but identical in nature. 

First. Vessels and cargoes illegally captured and con- 
demned by Spain, 

Second. Vessels and cargoes irregularly captured by 
French ships fitted out in Spanish ports^ and illegally 
condemned in the same, by French consuls and other tri- 
bunals. Both are in contemplation of national law, as 

• See Duane's report of the debase. 



51 

well as of our treaty with Spain, of 179J, one and the 
same offence, and they are but divided for conveniency 
of discussion. 

The convention of 1802, signed at Madrid by the pie* 
nipotentiaries of the respect! /e nations, recognizes and 
makes provision for reparation of vessels and car- 
goes captured by Spanish sh'ips^ and improperly con- 
demned by Spanish tribunals* 

And it contains the following article relative to 
vessels and cargoes captured by Frerich shipsy and con^ 
demned by French tribunals in Spanish ports. 

Sixth. " It not having been possible for the said ple- 
*' nipotentiaries to agree upon a mode, by which the 
" above-mentioned board of commissioners should ar- 
*' bitrate the claims originating from the excesses of 
*' foreign cruisers, agents, consuls or tribunals, in their 
•' respective territories, which might be imputable to 
*' the two go^-^rnments, they have express! v agreed that 
" each government shall reserve (as it does bv this con- 
*' vention) to itself, its subjects., or citizens, respectively, 
'* all the rights which they now have, and under which 
*' they may hereafter bring forward their claims, at such 
** times as may be most convenient to them." 

Although by this article It appears, that the two go- 
vernments could not, when the convention was signed, 
agree upon stipulations of reparation for our vessels and 
cargoes captured by French ships^ and condemned in 
Spanish ports by French tribunals^ yet our right to de- 
mand redress is expressly reserved. 

Captures and condemnations of vessels and carg^oes 



52 

of the first class, those made by the authority of Spciln^ 
amount in number to one hundred and thirteen. It 
would be a low estimate to value these, on an average, 
at 5525,000 each, amounting in gross to gS, 825,000. 

Those of the second class, captures of our vessels and 
cargoes by French ships fitted out in Spanish ports, and 
condemned in the same by French tribunals, amount itv 
number to 07ie hundred and twelve^ which, agreeably to 
the same estimate, make the sum of S2, 800,000. 
The aggregate value of our vessels and cargoes cap- 
tured and condemned by the ships and tribunals of the 
two nations, (according to our estimate,which is per- 
haps not too high) is five millions six hundred ajid twen- 
ty-jive thousand dollars* 

Let me ask on what principle Spain has refused to ra- 
tify the convention, for this enjoins no more than just 
reparation for our captured vessels and cargoes, which 
in the previous discussion, and by signing the conven- 
tion, she admits have been illegally condemned by Spa- 
nish tribunals ? It would puzzle a virtuoso in diplo-« 
macy to give any other answer than a determination not 
to do us justice. 

But we are told by the Marquis D'Yrujo, that his 
Catholic Majesty makes a previous demand of the era- 
sure from the convention of the article relating to the 
second class. If this be so, and the demand is the vlti* 
?natum of the Spanish court, zvar is inevitable, for it 
simply reserves to us the right to claim^ which we cannot 
either injustice or honor relinquish. 

By the law of nations, as well a» by every principle of 
«quity, our right to reparation is as entire and undoubt- 



S3 

ed In this as in the first class, and the urgency and ex- 
pediency of enforcing it, have become equally peremp- 
tory and indispensable. 

Without, however, troubling myself or wearying the 
reader with extracts from well known writings oii 
the one, or recondite arguments drawn from the pure 
and obvious precepts of the other, our right to claim, 
and the duty of Spain to }icld, prompt reparation, are 
plain. The treaty of San Lorenzo et Real, concluded 
between the United States and Spain in 1795, and ra- 
tified by the respective governments the following year, 
satisfactorily establishes this point. 

Article 6 of this treaty says, " Each party shall cndea- 
*' vour, by all the means in their power, to protect and 
*' defend all vessels and other effects belonging to the 
*' citizens or subjects of the other, which shall be with- 
** in the extent of their jurisdiction, by sea or by land, 
" and shall use all their efforts to recover, and cause to 
*' be recovered to the right owners, their vessels and 
*' effects which may have been taken from them within 
*' the extent of their said jurisdiction, whether they are 
" at war or not with the subjects who have taken po3- 
** session df the said effects." 

This article is In point and deteririiiies it in our favour 
beyond a doubt. Spain undertakes to " protect and de- 
** fend our vessels and otlrer effects within the extent of 
" her jurisdiction, by sea or by land ; to use all her ef- 
" forts to recoVef, and cause to be recovered to the 
*' right owners, their vessels and effects which may have 
" been taken from them, xvithin the jurisdiction of Spain., 
'■'• whether they are at w^ar Or not with the subjects, wh© 
" have taken possession of the said effects." 

E 



34 

Now the simple question is, have the vessels and c^r* 
goes, mentioned in the second class, been taken from us 
" xvithin the jurhsdlction of Spaing'' as expressly stipu- 
lated in this article? And the answer is equally simple: 
if they have not been taken by French vessels, and ille- 
gally condemned " within the jurisdiction of Spain" 
by French tribunals, our claim for the restoration of 
Siuch property, even if stipulated for in conformity to the 
reservation in the convention, which Spain has refused 
to ratify, wquld neither issue in inconvenience nor ei- 
pence. 

But whatever may be the inconvenience, whatever 
the amount of our plundered property, Spain is sacred-'" 
iv pledged to us, in the treaty of 1796, to satisfy our 
claims, and unless she does, there remains no alternative 
but the last appeal. We must resort to the arm of the 
nation to enforce justice. 



35 

New-York, October 8, 1804. 

LETTER, NO. V. 

ON the subject of our claims upon Spain for spolia- 
tions committed upon our vessels and cargoes by tribu- 
nals within her jurisdiction, there is but one opinion 
among us, and this is that they are just, and therefore 
cannot, in any event, be relinquished. 

A difference, hoAvever, has arisen between the United 
States and Spain in respect to the eastern boundary of 
Louisiana. Congress has by law included within this 
boundary, territory east of the river JJIohilc, Spain 
has taken umbrage at this inclusion, and considers it, 
or affects to consider it, an invasion of her territory. 
The question what is or is not the easternlimit of Loui- 
siana^ according to the terms of the treaty of cession by 
France to us ? is new and intricate, and I am afraid the 
discussion of it will require more time and attention from 
the reader than he is willing to bestow, although the 
subject is, in every point of view, extremely interesting 
to the United States. I have paid some attention to it, 
and now submit the result of my enquiries, with all that 
brevity which is consistent with a correct understanding 
of a subject but little agitated and perhaps less under- 
stood. 
t 

The treaty of cession, concluded a.t Paris the 30lh of 
April, 1803, between the United States and France, 
was ratified by our government on the 20th of October 
of the same year. On the 21st of February, 1802, con- 
gress passed an act ''''Jor laying and <-ollcciing duties on 
** imports aiul tonnage xvithin the territories ceded to the 



36 

** United States by the treatij of the thirtieth of April^ 
*' J 803, betxveen the Ujiited States and the French Repub- 
*' //c." This act contains the ensuing section. 

*' Section II. And be it further enacted, That the 
" President of the United States be, and he is hereby 
" authorized, whenever he shall deem it expedient, to 
** erect the Shores, Waters and Inlets of the Bay and 
^' River Mobile, and of the other Rivers, Creeks, Inlets 
** and Bays emptying into the Gulf of Mexico, (ras^* of the 
" said River Mobile, and west thereof to the Pascagoia, 
*' inclusive, into a separate district, and to establish such 
" place within the same, as he shall deem expedient, tp 
*' be the port of entry and delivery for such district, and 
" to designate such other places, within the same 
" district, not exceeding two, to be ports of delivery 
" only." 

Spain demands the immediate repeal of the law con- 
tainmg this section, and the demand is founded on the 
supposition that Louisiana, as ceded to us, extends no 
further east than the River Iberville, and the Lakes 
Maurepas and Portchartrain, which form the eastern pre- 
cinct of the Isand of New-Orleans. She admits that 
Louisiana includes this island, but denies that it extends 
farther east. 

On the contrary, according to* the interpretation of 
our government, upon which the section is founded, 
Louisiana not only includes the Island of New-Orleans 
and the River Mobile, but extends east to the PerdidQ. 
Congress and the Executive maintain, and have justly 



• It XA'ouId have been more satisfactory had Congress specified in the 
act hcnu far eait of the Mobile was claimed. T^^e term east of the Mo- 
bile, without sajijig how far east, is indefinite. 



37 

and wisely given to their opinion the force of law, that 
the River Pc'rclido is, agreeably to the treaty of cession, 
the. true eastern limit of Loxdalana. If this interpretation 
be correct, and there exists no solid reason to doubt it, 
Louisiana includes one half of -what, from the year ITSS, 
to the year 1783, and neither before nor since, wad cor- 
rectly termed West Florida, The position of our go» 
vernment then is, and it is that for which we contend, 
that Louisiana extends east to the River Perdido, 

The assertion of this claim on the one hand, and the 
denial of it on the other, are founded on the ceding arti- 
cle in the treaty of cession formed between the United 
States and France, on the thirtieth of April, 1803. I^ 
is in these words. 

** The First Consul of the French Republic, desiring 
*' to give to the United States a strong proof of his 
*' friendship, doth hereby cede to the Unifv%'l States, in 
*' the name of the French Republic, forever and in full 
*' sovereignty, the colony or province of Louisiana, -with 
** the same extent that it 7ioxu has in the hands of Spain^ 
" and that it had -when France possessed it^ and such as it 
*' should he after the treaties sicbsequenthj entered into be- 
** tween Spain and other Statcs,^^ 

Three distinct questions naturally grow out of the 
words in i^licsy although in the end they are all necessa- 
rily resolved into one and the same. 

What was the extent ("or eastern limit J* of Louisiana 
when in the hands of Spain ? 

* I shall use " extent" and eastern boundary or limit indifferentlr, 
since it is but the latter that is in dispute. About the north, south, and. 
west extent or boundary there is no diHerence of opinion. The questi'jn 
is simply the eastern boundary or extent. 



39 

"What when possessed by France ? 

AA^hat after the treaties subsequently entered into be« 
twe en Spain and other states? 

The correct answer to the first, will be the true solu- 
tion to the second query. To ascertain what the extent 
of I-ouisiana was when in the hands of Spain, we must 
detc;rmine what it was when Louisiana was possessed b)" 
France, for this territory was first owned by France and 
afterwards transferred by her to Spain, The extent of 
Louisiana when possessed by France, was precisely the 
same as the extent of Louisiana when in the hands of 
Spain. Spain received it from France, and France gave 
as !jhe possessed it. 

What then was the boundary of Louisiana when pos- 
sessed by France I Patience and research are essential 
to the enquiry. We must go back to its discovery, trace 
its settlement, ascertain its boundary, and note its vari- 
ous transfers from nation to nation up to its cession to us. 

Florida, of which we shall hereafter more distinctly 
speak, was discovered by the Spaniards, and, previous 
to the discovery of the Mississippi and Louisiana by 
the French, was, in some degree, settled by them as far 
west as Pensacola^ but no further. At Pensacola^ the 
western extj-emitij of the Spanish settlements in Florida^ 
the Spaniards built a fort. *' After the discovery of 
*' Florida," says Du Fratz, " it was with a jealous eye 
*' the Spaniards saw the French settle there in 1564, 
'* under Rene de Laudonnier, sent there by the Admi- 
" ral Coligni, where he built Fort Carolin^ the ruins of 
** which are still to be seen above the Fort of Pensacola, 
'*' There the Spaniards, after some time, attacked them, 



** and, forcing tliem to capkulate, cruelly miirdired 
*' them, without any regard had to the treaty concluded 
" between them. As France was at that time involved 
*' ia the calamities of a religious war, this act of barbarity 
*' had remained unresented, had not a single man of 
*' Mont Marsin^ named Dominique de Gourges^ attempt- 
*' ed, in the name of the nation, to take vengeance th-ere- 
** of. In 1567, having fitted out a vessel, and sailed for 
*' Florida^ he took three forts built by the Spaniards, 
*' and after killing many of them in the several attacks 
*' he made, hanged the rest ; and having settled there a 
'* new post, returned to France. But the disorders of 
*' the state having prevented the maintaining that J^cst, 
*' the Spaniards soon after re-took possession of the 
*' country, where they remain to this day."* 

From this "we learn that Spain, by right of discovery, 
claimed Florida^ and maintained that it extended -wist 
as far as the River Pensacola. She therefore considered 
the building of Fort Carolin by the French, the " ruins 
" of which may still be seen above the Fort of Fensaoo- 
" la," as an infringement on her territory. Here aroise 
the first contest between France and Spain in this new 
country; Spain claiming i^/oW^a, and insisting that it 
extended tvest to Pensacola; France, endeavouring to 
possess and maintain a footing in what Spain, agreeably 
to usage, viewed as her exclusive territory. 

*' From that time (the return of de Gourges from 
** Florida^ the French seemed to have dropped all 
*' thoughts of that coast, when the wars in Canada with the 
** natives afforded them the knowledge of the vast coun- 

* History of Louisiana, vol. 1. p. 3. London Edition of 1763. 

Du Pratz published his history in France in 1758. He was a French 
officer of distinction, and had resided m Louisiana in tbjit cspacitj 16 
years. 



Id 

'** try (Louisiana) ;hey are possessed of" at this dtiy\ Iii 
*' one of these wars, Father Hennepin was taken and car- 
*' ried to the ////72c/.?. As he had some skill in Surgery, 
** he proved serviceable to that people, and was kindly 
** treated by them ; and being- at full liberty, he travelledf 
*' over the country, following fbr a considerable time the 
*' banks of the Mississippi^ without being able to proceed 
*' to its mouth. However, he failed not to take posses- 
** sion of that country in the nan'ie of Louis XIV. calling 
** it Loidsiana. Providence having facilitated his return 
,*' to Canada^ he gave the most advantag'eous account of 
*' all he had seen, and after his Return to f" ranee, drew 
*' up a relation thereof, dedicated to M. Colbert. 

** The account he gave of Louisiana^ failed not to pro- 
*' duce its good effects. M. de la Salle, equally famous 
*' for his misfortunes and his courage, undertook to tra- 
*' verse these unknown countries quite to the se^. In 
*' Januar}', 1679, he set out from ^lebec with alarge de-f 
'* tachment, and being come among the lllinoisy there 
*' built the first fort France ever had in that country, 
** and left a good garrison under the command of the 
*' Che%'alier de Tonti. From thence he went down the 
" River Mississippi quite to its n^outh,"^ which, as has 
*' been said, is in the Gulf of Mexico j and having riiadei 
" observations and taken the elevation in the best man- 
*' her he couW, returned by the saitie way to ^lebec'y 
** from whence he passed over to France. 

*' After givlilig pafticulars of his journey to 3L Col' 
•* berty that great minister, who knew of what impor- 
'* tance it w^as to the state to make sure of so fine and 
** extensive a country, scrupled not to allow him a ship 

• Thj« was ths fiitst disctn'ciy of the mouth of the Mississippi hy ari 
E-yropeiin power. 



41 

** and a small frigate in order to find out, hy the way cf 
" the Gulf of Mexico^ the mouth of the Mississippi. He 
" set sail in 1685, but his observations not having had 
" all the justness requisite, after arriving in the Gulf, he 
*' got beyond the river, and running too far xvestward 
" entered the Bay of St. Bernard ; and some misunder- 
" standing happening between him and the officers of the 
" vessel, he debarked with the men under his command, 
*' and having settled a post in that place, undertook to 
" go by land in quest of the great river. But after a 
" march of several days, some of his people, imitated 
" on account of the fatigue he exposed them to, avail- 
*' ing themselves of an opportunity when separated from 
** the rest of his men, basely assassinated him. The sol- 
*' diers, though deprived of their commander, still con- 
" tinued their route, and, after crossing many rivers, 
" arrived at length at the Arkansas^^ where they unex- 
** pectedly found a French post lately settled. The Che- 
*' valier de Tonti was gone to the fort of the Illinois^ 
*' quite to the mouth of the river, about the time he 
*' judged M. de la Salle might have arrived by sea, and 
** not finding him was gone up again in order to return 
*' to his post ; and, in his way, entering the river of the 
*' Arkansas^ quite to the village of that nation with whom 
he made an alliance, some of his people insisted they 
** might be allowed to settle there, which was agreed to, 
** he leaving ten of them in that place.f 

** The report of the pleasantness of Louisiana spread- 
** ing through Canada, many Frenchmen of that country 
*' repaired to settle there, dispersing themselves at plea-* 
*' sure along the river Mississippi, and even oij some 
** islands on the coast, and on the river Mobile* 

F 
• North West branch of the Mississippi river, 
t Du Fr»tz Hutory of Louisian?, vol. 1. p. 4 to S. 



4^2 

*' Louisiana remained in this neglected state till M. 
*' d'iberville, having discovered, in IJ'QS, the mouths of 
" the river Mississippi, and being nominated Governor- 
*' General of that vast country, carried thither ihit^rst 
" colony in 1699. 

" The settlement was made on the 7-iver 3Iobile^ with 
" all the facility that could be wished.^^" 

We then fiud that about the year 1678, the French 
discovered the river Mississippi^ with its contiguous and 
vast land en both sides, which, in honor of Louis the 
XlVth. they called Louisiana ; that in 1685, a settlement 
was made by the followers of the unfortunate La Salle, on 
the Arkansas., one of the branches of the Mississippi ; 
that in 1698, M. d'iberville was appointed Governor- 
General oi Louisiana by Louis the XlVthj that he car- 
ried thither the first colony in 1699, and that he made 
the first important settlement on the river Mobile^ but 
ten leagues west of the river Per dido ^ 

'' The war which Louis the XlVth had to maintain, 
" continues Du Pratz, and the pressing necessities of 
*' the state, continually engrossed the attention of the 
*' ministry, nor allowed them time to think of Louisiana, 

*' What was then thought most adviseable, was to 
" make a grant of it to some rich person, who finding it 
*' his interest to improve that country, would at the same 
'' time that he promoted his own interest, promote that 
" of the state. Louisiana ^^y^fi^^\^^s granted to dfonsieur 
'■'■ Crozat,''-\ The grant is dated Sept. 14, 1712, and 
the parts of it relating to the subject in discussion are 
as follow. 

* Du Pratz History of Louisiana, vol. 1. p. 7 to 8. f. Ibid, p- 8. 



4iS 

*' Louis, by the grace of God, King of France and 
" Navarre : To all who shall see tlKse letters, greeting. 
** The care we have always had to procure the welfare 
" aiul advantage of our subjects having induced us, not- 
" withstanding the almost continual wars which we have 
'* been obliged to support from the beginning of our 
" reign, to seek for all possible opportunities of enlarg- 
" ing and extending the trade of our American colonies, 
" we did in the year 1683, give our orders to undertake 
** a discovery of the countries and lands which are si- 
" tuated in the northern part of America, between New 
" France and New Mexico. And the Sieur de la Salle, 
" to whom we committed that enterprize, having had 
" success enough to confirm a belief that a communica- 
" tion might be settled from New France to the Gulf of 
" IMexico, by means of large rivers; this o'aligixl u?> irn- 
*' mediately after the peace of Ryswick to give orders 
" for the establishing a colony there, and maintaining a 
*' garrison, 7uhich has kept and preserved tlie possession^ 
" we had taken in the year 1683, of tli£ lands, coasts 
" and islands which are situated in the gulf of Mexico, 
*' between Carolina on the east, and Old and New -Mexi- 
*' CO on the west. But a new war having broke out in 
" Europe shortly after, there was no possibility, till now, 
" of reaping from that new colony the advantages that 
" might have been expected from thence, because the 
*' private men, who are concerned in the sea trade were 
" all under engagements with other colonies wiiich they 
'* have been obliged to follow : And WHEI^EAS upon 
•*• the Information we have received concerning the dis- 
" position and situation of the said countries knoxun at 
^^ present by the name of the province of Louisiana^ we 
" are of opinion that there may be established therein a 
" considerable commerce, so much the more advautage- 
" ousto our king'dom in tluit, there haii hitherto been a 



/^ 



44 

'' necessity of fetching from foreigners the greatest part 
*' of the commodities "which may be brought from 
" thence, and because in exchange thereof we need carry 
*' thither nothing but commodities of the growth and 
** manufacture of our own kingdom ; we have resolved 
" to grant the commerce of the country of Louisiana to 
*' the Sieur Anthony Crozat, our counsellor, secretary 
*' of the household, crown and revenue, to whom we en- 
** trust the execution of this project. We are the more 
" readily inclined hereunto, because his zeal and the sin- 
" gular knowledge he has acquired in maritime com- 
*' merce, encourage us to hope for as good success as he 
" has hitherto had in the divers and sundry enterprizes 
" he has gone upon, and which have procured to our 
" kingdom great quantities of gold and silver in such 
" conjunctures as have rendered them very welcome 
" to us. 

" For these reasons, being desirous to shew our fa* 
'* vour to him, and to regulate the conditions upon which 
*' we meant to grant him the said commerce, after hav- 
" ing deliberated this affair in our council, of our certain 
" knowledge, full power, and royal authority : We, by 
" these presents, signed by our hand, have appointed 
** and do appoint the said Sieur Crozat solely to carry 
*« on a trade in all the lands possessed by us, and bound- 
*' ed by New Mexico, and by the lands of the English 
" of Carolina, all the establishments^ ports^ havens^ rivers^ 
" and principally the port and haven of the Isle of DaU' 
" phine, heretofore called Massacre ; the river of St. Lew- 
" is ^heretofore called Mississippi from the edge of the sea 
*' as far as the Illinois, together with the river of St. 
*' Philips heretofore called Missouries, and St, Jerome^ 
** heretofore Ovabache, tvith all the countries^ territories^ 
" lakes within land, and the rivers which fall directly or 
^' indirectly into that part of the river St. Lexvis. 



45 

" The ARTICLES. — 1st. Our pleasure is, that all the 
*' aforesaid lands, countries, streams, rivers, and islands, 
** be and remain comprised under the name of the go- 
" vernment of Louisiana, which shall be dependent upon 
*' the general government of New France, to which 
*' it is subordinate ; and further, that all the lands which 
" we possess from the Illinois be united, so far as occa- 
" sion require to the general government of New 
" France, and become part thereof, reserving however 
*' to ourselves the liberty of enlarging as we shall think 
" fit, the extent of the government of the said country 
*' of Louisiana." 

This document, the first formal and autlioritatlve one 
on the part of France in regard to the eastern confine of 
Louisiana, does not precisely establish the boundary 
assigned to it by our government, although it goes 
very far towards it. It includes within Loidsianay all 

THE ESTABLISHMENTS, PORTS, HAVENS, RIVERS, AND 
PRINCIPALLY THE PORT AND HAVEN OF THE ISLE 
DaUPHINE, HERETOFORE CALLED MaSSCCre^^ WITH ALL 
TERRITORIES, LAKES WITHIN LAND, AND THE RIVERS 
WHICH FALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INTO THAT PART 

OF THE Mississippi. 

Danphine is an island in the mouth of Mobile Bay, 
and Mobile Bay is ten leagues ~u>est'\ of the river Pcrdidoy 
the boundary claimed by our government. 



* *' The isle Massacre was so called by the first Frenchmen who landed 
" there, because on the shores of this island, they found a small rising 
" ground, and on examining them, they found dead men's bones, just 
" appearing above the little earth that covered them. Then their curio- 
" sity led them to take off the earth in several places, but finding nothing 
" underneath but a heap of bones, they cried out with horror, ah ! 
" what a massacre !"' Du Pratz, vol. 1. p. 26 — 7. 

t Modern Gazetteer, vol. 2. Article, Perdido. See also Moue'j Ca- 
zetteer. 



4^ 

Having noted the discoveiy, the first public and au- 
thoritative recognition, and the settlement of Louisiana 
by France, as far east as the Mobile^ it is essential to a 
dear comprehension of the subject, to advert to the dis- 
covery of Florida. 

*' Juan Ponce de Leon, having acquired both fame atid 
*' v.calth by the reduction of Puerto Rico, was impatient 
*' to engage in some new enterprize. He fitted out three 
'*■ ships at his own expence, for a voyage of discovery, 
" and his reputation soon drew together a respectable 
*' body of followers. He directed his course towards 
'* the Lucayo islands, and, after touching at several of 
** them, as well as the Bahama isles ^ he stood to the 
*'■ south-west and discovered a country hitherto unknoxun 
*' to the Spainardsy which he called Florida^ either be- 
" cause he fell in Avlth it on Palm Sunday, or on account 
*' of its gay and beautiful appearance. He returned to 
*' Puerto Rico through the channel now known by the 
" name of the gidf of Florida. ''^^ 

This discovery was made in the year 1512, and it is 
certain, from de Leon's touching at the Liieayo islands^ 
the BahaJTin isles^ and his returning to Puerto Rico thro' 
the channel of the gidf of Mexico^ that he first landed on 
the coast of what is now generally termed Fast Florida, 
and most probably not far south of -5^^. xhtgustin. . 

We learn from Du Pi-atz, and from all the historians 
who 'iave written upon the discovery and settlement of 
l^ouisiana and Florida, that in the year 1699, the period 
of the first settlement of the French upon the Mobile^ and 
nearly two ernturies after de Leon's discovery of Florida, 
t]\e Spaniards had not penetrated farther west^ nor had 

* Robertson's History of America, vol. l,p. 230 — 31. 



47 

they claimed further xvcst^ than the rivei- Pensacda. So 
far then we have clear, distinct, and indisputable historic 
knowledge of the discovery, settlement, and limits of 
Louisiana and Florida. 

The grant of Louis the XlVth to Crozat, of Louisia- 
na, is dated Sept. 14th, 1712. This grant recognises 
the Mobile as the eastern limit of Louisiana, and at this 
period it had not been disputed by the Spaniards. 

Pensacola now remained the undisturbed xvestcrn 
boundary of Florida until the year 1718, when the Span- 
ish fort there was attacked by the French, stationed at 
Mobile, 

" Towards the beginning of the year 1719, the Com- 
" mandant-General of Louisiana having understood, by 
*' the last ships which arrived, that war was declared l)e- 
" tween France and Spain^ resolved to take the port of 
*' Pensacola from the Spaniards."* 

" The Commandant-General, persuaded it would be 
" impossible to besiege the place in form, wanted to take 
*' it by surprise, confiding to the ardor of the French, 
*■*• The French anchored near the Sortin, made their de- 
*' scent undiscovered, seized on the guard-house, and 
*' clapt the soldiers in irons, which was done in less than 
half an hour. The Spanish Governor was taken in bed, 
*' so that they were all made prisoners without blood- 
" shed."t 

The post of Pensacola was soon afterwards re-taken 
by the Spaniards sent from the Havanna.| 

* Du Pratz History of Louisiana, vol. 1. p. 1S3. 
t Uid p. 188—9. X Ibid p. 192. 



48 

On the 17th September, 1719, the post of Pensacoh 
was again taken by the French^* and remained in their 
possession until the peace of this year between the two 
powers. 

*■'- The history of Pensacola was the more necessar}', as 
*' it is so near our settlements that the Spaniards heard 
*' our guns, when we gave them notice by that signal of 
" our design to come and trade with them. At the 
*' peace that soon succeeded between France and Spain, 
** Pensacola was restored to the last."t 

The Perdido is ten leagues east of the bay of Mobilcy 
and the bay of Pensacola is four east of the Perdido^ so 
that this river lies between the bays Mobile and 5^^" 
sa^ola. 

To do away all cause of misunderstanding in future 
between the two powers, as to the eastern extent of 
Lousiana^ and the -western of Florida^ it was agreed be- 
tween France and Spain^ in the treaty of 1719, that the 
river Perdido should be the eastern boundary of the 
former, and the -western of the latter.f 

Thus established by treaty, the Perdido continued to 
be the western boundary of Florida and the eastern of Louis- 
iana, until the original transfer of the latter by France to 
ajiain in 1761, which I shall presently notice. 

France then, from its discovery, continued in the uninter- 
rupted possession of Louisiana until the year 1761, vhen 

• Du Pratz History of Louisiana, vol. 1. p. 196. See also the gene- 
ral history of voyages in French, vol. 5. p. 600 — 650. Paris Edition, 
1757. 

f Ibid, p. 197. 

+ See Mr. Randolph's Speech delivered in the House of Representa- 
tives on the 12ih Feb. 1804. 



she transferred It to Spain. In 1758, as I have ah-eady 
remarked, Du Pratz first published in France his bistort' 
of Louisiana, and in his chapter of the description of 
the Lower Louisiana, and the mouths of the Mississip- 
pi, he says : 

* The coast is bounded to the west by St. Bernard's 
' bay, where La Salle landed. On the east the coast is 
*^ bounded by Rio Perdido^ which the French corruptedly 

* call Aux Perdrix ; Rio Perdido signifying Lost River ^ 

* aptly so called by the Spaniards, because it loses itself 
' under ground, and afterwards appears again, and dis- 

* charges itself into the sea, a little to the east of the Mo- 

* bile, on which the frst French planters settled.""^ 

i<'orty-nine years then after the treaty between France 
and Spain, in 1719, which established the Perdido aS the 
eastern boundary of Louisiana, Du Pratz, the most cor- 
rect and celebrated historian of this country, geopraphi- 
oally confirms it. 

To the second volume of his hlstory,is prefiJted a map 
%f Louisiana^ which takes in to the east^ the Perdido^ and 
no further. 

I might be content with citing this body of historic au- 
thority, but as I find Du Pratz corroborated by an author 
of no inconsiderable note, an extract from his work may 
not be unacceptable. 

T. Jefferys, Geographer to the King of England, in 
his "Natural and Civil History of the French Domini- 
ons in North and South America," gives the following 
boundaries of Louisiana : 

' See Du Pr?,tz Hist, of J-ouisinar.a, vol. 1. p. 216. 



fSO 

* The coast of Louisiana is boutided on the zi>est by St. 

* Barnard^a Bay, where La Saile landed, imagining it to 
' be the mouth of the Miss-i.^sippi. Towards the east^ the 
' coast is bounded by J<io Perclido^ or the river ijohidi hats; 
' itself^ from its ranning under ground, and afterwards 

* emerging, and continuing its course till it falls into the 

* sea, a small distance eastward from the Mobile.'* 

So f.ir there is no difficulty in ascertaining the eastern 
boundary of Louisiana, and with a little more attention it 
will be perceived, by the assistance of equally clear and 
undoubted historic authority, that, throughout ail iks 
transfers from France to other powers, to the fir&t of 
which we shall immediately approach, the Per-dido xvasthe 
eastern limit of Louisiana, and the xvestern of Florida. 

In 1755, hostilities commenced between France and 
Great-Britain. In this war, British arms, guided by the 
vigor of Chatham, were attended with unexampled suc- 
cess. A brilliant career of successive victories in Ame- 
rica, was crowned Vvith the surrender of Quebec, in 
175^. Every where the genius of France frowned up- 
on her eiforts. 

In 1761, amid the disasters of the French arms, the 
treatv, knbv/n by fhe name of the " Family compacty^ \va.s 
concluded between France and Spain. This treaty iden- 
tifies the interests of the two powers. The principle 
which it established between them is, that '' xvhoever at^ 
tacks one croxvn^ attacks the other. ''"'j This treaty involv- 
ed "Spain in hostilities with Great Britain on the side of 
France, and, as indemnity, Louisiana, by a secret treaty 

* P:.ge 152, Lend. fol. edition, 1761. The work is dedicated to 
Biigad-cr General Townsend, who commanded at the attack on -Q^te- 
itc af.ir tae failure of General Wolfe. 

* CncJmer's CcUecuon of Treaties, vol. 1. p. "554 j- 



51 

®f contemporaneous date, was ceded by France to Spjiin. 
This was the first ti^ansfer of Louisiana by France, and 
we have seen that up to this period, the Perdtdo was its 
boundary. 

Spain now entered into the war with great spirit, but it 
was of short duration, and to her it was as inglorious as 
it was short. 

In 1762 almost all the French and Spanish \^'est-India 
Islands fell into the hands of the British. On the 13th of 
August the Havanna capitulated to Admirals Pococke 
and Albemai'lc. In the east, Manilla was reduced. — Eve- 
ry where British arms were taiumphant. 

Early in November of this year, preliminaries of peace 
were interchanged at Versailles by England, France, and 
Spain, and in February, 1763, the articles of peace were 
signed at Paris by the ministers of the respective powers. 

In this treaty, Spain cedes to England Florida^ and 
France cedes to the same power all that part of Louisiana 
which lies between the River Iberville, the Lakes Mau- 
repas and Pontchartrain, and the river Perd/do^ leaving 
Spain in the possession of Nev/-Orleans, the Mississippi, 
and the territoiy ivest of it. 

France however was but the ostoisible owner, for in 
1761, Louisiana, by the secret treaty with Spain already 
mentioned, was ceded to her by his Christian Majesty ; 
but as this treaty was unknown to Great Britain, France, 
in 1763, was to her the ceding power of the part of Loui- 
iana above described. The following are the articles of 
cession. 



5S 

Article 7. " It is agreed that, for the future, the con- 
fines bet^vccn his Britannic Majesty and those of his most 
Christian IMajesty, shall he fixed by a line drawn along the 
middle of the river Mississippi, from its source to the 
Iberville, and from thence by a line drawn along this ri- 
ver, and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, to the sea, 
and for this purpose the most Christian King cedes in full 
right, and guarantees to his Britannic Majesty, the River 
and Port of Mobile^ and every thing which he possesses, 
or ought to possess, on the left side of the Mississipi 
except the town of New-Orleans, and the islands in which 
it is situated, which shall remain to France."^ 

In this article France cedes to England Louisiana^ from 
the Island of New-Orleans to the Mobile. We shall now 
see vf\v?Lt Spain cedes to Great Britain by an article of the 
same treaty. 

Article 20. " In consequence of the restitutions sti- 
pulated in the preceding article, [Cuba and the other con- 
quered Spanish Islands, &c.] his Catholic Majesty cedes 
and guarantees, in full right to his Britannic Majesty, 
Florida^ with Fort St. Augustin, and the Bay of Pens a- 
cola:'\ 

France then cedes Louisiana to the 3Iobile ; Spain, Flo' 
rida to the Bav of Pemacola. — Here, in the cession of 
this countiy to England, are recognised the ancient boun- 
daries between France and Spain ; the former ceding east 
as far as the Per dido ; the latter, -west as fai" as Pensqcola. 

Hitherto Florida^ simply, was the name by which the 
conutry, claimed and owned by Spain, was designated. 

• Chalmer's CcUec'.ion of Treaties, vol \- p. 473. f Ibid. p. 479. 



53 

East and West Florida were terms unknown previous to 
the cession to Great-Britain, and were subsequently intro- 
duced by her for convenience of |[^ovornment. In a PrO" 
clamation issued by Greal-Britain immediately after the 
peace of 1763, the terms east and ive'it were first intro- 
duced and applied to the cession respectively made by 
France of Louisiana^ and by Spain of Florida, To the 
latter, the term east Florida is applied ; to the former, 
tvest. In east Florida was erected one government, in 
west, another, and the limits of each were distinctly mark- 
ed in the Proclamation of the British goverament. Mr 
James Grant was appointed governor of east Florida; 
Mr. George Johnson of west. The Proclamation thus 
defines their respective limits. 

*' The Government of East Florida, bounded to the 
westward by the Gulf of Mexico, and Apalachicola river." 

*' The government of west Florida, bounded to the 
southward by the Gulf of Mexico, including all the Is- 
lands within six leagues of the coast, from the river Apa- 
lachicola to the lake Pontchartrain ; to the westward, by 
the said Lake, and the Lake Maurepas, and to the east- 
ward, by the river Apalachicola."* 

This Geographical division varies but little from that 
which obtained with France and Spain anterior to the ces- 
sion ; the only remarkable alteration is the change of 
nameSy and this cannot confuse the distinct ideas we pre- 
viously had of the limits of Louisiana and Florida. West 
Florida, as we must now term it, embraces, and extends 
eastwardly, but very little farther than the Pcrdido^ the 
eastern limit of Louisiana before the cession ; and ea.st 

* See Proclamation in MarsiKiH's life of Wabhiiigton, vol. i. Ap- 
pendix p. 40 



54 

Flcrida includes all that territoiy which, previous to the 
cession, -vvas owned by Spain and known by the name of 
Florida, with this difference, that instead of extending 
is^estwardl}^ to Pensacola^ it is limited by the river Apala~ 
ehicola. The difference however, is but trifling. Sub- 
stantially, the division of Louisiana and Florida, when 
owned bv France and Spain, was preserved by Great- 
Britain, under the varied denomination of East and TVcst 
Florida. ■V 

The American Revolution induced the severance of 
mf!t and xvest Florida from Great Britain. In 1 779 Spain 
joined the confederacy against England. In 1780, the 
town and fort of Mobile surrendered to her arms, and in 
IT'S!, she triumphed at Pensacola. In a short time 
Spain reduced, and literally drove the British from the 
Floridas. 

Article V. of the definitive treaty of Peace of 1783, be- 
tween England and Spain, cedes to his " Catholic Majes- 
ty, east Florida, as also west Florida."* 

Louisiana on both sides of the Mississppi, and Florida, 
-vrcre now in the sole possession of Spain. The former, 
from its western to its eastern bounds, the Per dido ^ was 
eeded to her by France in the secret treaty of 1 781. That 
Boinion of it only v/hich lies between the eastern precincts 
of New-Orleans and the Perdido, was, by France, for 
Spain, ceded to England in 1763. In 1783, it was res- 
tored by England to Spain. 

A.S Louisiana east to the Perdido, and Florida west to 
Pensacola were, subsequent to the cession of 1763, and 

• Clnilmers Crllection of Treaties, vol, ii. p. 232. 



'S3 

not before, distinguished by the terms aiit and went Flo- 
rida, so arter the treaty of retrocession in 1783, these 
terms cea^jed to exist except in English geajrajxhi/. Spain 
resumed the ancient limits and terms of these places. 
Like Great-Britain, she formed of this territory two dis- 
tinct governments, the goytrnmentoi Louisiana, and the 
government of Florida, The governor of Louisiana re- 
sided at New-Grleans, and his territory aaid Jurisdiction 
€Xtended to tii-e Perdibo East ; the goverixor of Flortda 
resided at St. Augustin, and his territory and jm'isdiction 
extended to Pensacola West, This was a complete re- 
sumption and unequivocal recognition in fact and name of 
Louisiana, when in the hands of France, and of Florida 
when in possession of Spain, previous to the cession to 
Great-Britain, in 1763. 

Thus Louisiana continued in the possession of Spain 
until the treaty of St. Idelfoneo of October first, 1800, con- 
cluded between his Catholic Majesty and the F'irst Consul 
of France. By this treaty was ceded to France, ' the 
*■ colony or province of Louisiana, vjith the same extent 
' that it notv has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when, 
* France possessed it, and such as it should be after the 
'• treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and 
other States.' Precisely in these terms, F'rance, in the 
treaty of the 30th of April, 1803, cedes to die United 
States the colony of Louisiana. 

I may now ask what was the eastern extent of Louisi- 
ana when in the hands of Spain ? and answer the P^rdido^ 

What when possessed by France l 



56 
The Perdido. 

Whz^t in the treaties suijsequently entered into be- 
tween Spain and other States ? 

The Perdido. 

And from this boundary we cannot, consistently with 
justice to ourselves and honor to the nation, recede. 



1 



APPENDIX. .y 

NO. 1. 



N the discharge of an important, and to myself an indlspensibl6 
duty, the subjoined statement was communicated, in the first instance, 
to the government — In a respectful solicitude for the rights and inter- 
est of our country the deposition and letters are now made public. 
Sept. 20. W. JACKSON. 

ON Thursday, September 6th, 1804, about noon, a note, of which 
the following is a transcript, was left at my office, as wiy clerk inform- 
ed me, by a person who lives with Mr. Francis Breuil, merchant, in 
Philadelphia : 

" The Marquis de Casa Yrujo presents his compts. to Major Jack- 
" son and would be very happy to know from him when and v.here he 
" could have the pleasure to see him in the course of this day." 
" Thursday 6." 

Never having before received any communication frorri Mr. Yrujo — 
Never having even exchanged one word of conversation with him in 
my life — I was not a little surprized at receiving this message, whic.S 
I answered by a note to the following purport: 

" Major Jackson presents his compliments to the MarquJs de Casa 
" Yrujo — in reply to his note of this morning, just now received, Ma- 
" jor Jackson will be at his office until 2 o'clock ; and at his house in 
*' Chesnut-street, next to Gen. Dickinson's, until 4 o'clock — at either 
" of v/hich places he will see the Marquis de Casa Yrujo ; or, if more 
" convenient, he will wait on him." 

" Thursday, Sept. 6th." 

This note was sent by Mr. Johnson, my c'erk, and left at Governor 
M'Kean's. Mr, Breuil called on me soon after, and said that the Mar- 
quis de Casa Yrujo would be glad to see me at the Marquis' house at 
5 o'clock. 

I asked Mr. Breuil if he knew on what business Mr. Yrujo wanted 
to see me — he said he did not know. 

I went at 5 o'clock to Mr. Yrwjo's house, and on entering the room, 
was accosted by him in nearly the following words : 

" You will be surprized, Major Jackson, at the liberty I have taken 
in sending to you, but I trust an explanation of the motive will excuss. 
me. I consider you, sir, as a gentleman, a man of letters, and a man 
of honor. 

" By a political intolerance you have been forced to adopt a profes- 
sion, different from what you have heretofore pursued — but it is one in 
which you are qualified to be very useful. I observe by certain opin- 
ions expressed in your paper, that you consider the present adminis- 
tration (for I will not call them government) as disinclined to go to 
war with Spain ; in this hovrfever you are mistaken — the reverse is the 
fact, and they only wish the federal papers to utter those opinions that 
they may have an argument of that sort for indulging their wish to go 
to war with any country, which would certainly be very injurious to 
your's — for if the King, my master, was to order thres ships cf the 
line and six frigates to the Mississippi — three ships of the line and six 
frigates to the Chesapeak — and three ships of the line wid iux frigates 



58 

tn Sandy Hook, what -would you do ? But you have it in your power, 
ti> do much gOi-)d, by espousing the part of peace, which is so neces-. 
sary to both nations — And if you will consent to take elucidations on 
tlie subject from me, I will furnish them — and I will make you any 
acknowledg;emcnc." Perceiving, at this moment, his infamous pur- 
pose, I wiJi difficulty stifled the emotions which it excited, and re- 
s rained my indignation. He went on to examine in detail the seve- 
ral points in (lispiite between Spain and the United States — and, as I 
wished to learn his opinions respecting them, I desired him to proceed. 
Among other things he said that if Mr. Pinckney had acted by instruc- 
tions from the administration, or if his conduct should be approved by 
them, war was inevitable. But he had no doubt war was the wish of 
our administration, for he had received a letter from New-Orleans, 
dated on the 25th of April last, which stated, that there was a letter 
at that place in Mr. Jefferson's hand writing, dated in March last, 
which declared, that if the settlers between the Mississippi and the 
Rio Perdido, would raise the American, colors, they should be sup- 
ported. 

H< continued his observations, and pressed me to give him an an- 
swer — assuring me that this was no diplomatic management, but an 
tpancheinent (unbosoming) of himself to me as a man of honor — and 
he trusted I would so consider it. — I then quitted the room ; he went 
with me to the street door, and again asked me when I would give 
him an answer. Willi difficulty 1 suppressed the indignation of my 
feelings, and left the house. W.JACKSON. 

Sworn the 7th September, 1804, That the contents of the within 
statement are just and true. 

ED WD. SHIPPEN, Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 

JPhiladtlJihia, September Ith^ 1804. 
Sir, 
CoNsiBER A.T10NS paramount to all others, the love of my country, 
and a sense of personal honor, which no change of fortune or cir- 
cumstance can ever efface or diminish, have decided mc, on the pre- 
sent occasion, to address you. 

'J'he accompanying document refers to the most interesting objects 
that can engage my attention, and for the moment, those objects ban- 
ish t'vcry other remembrance. 

Mr. Yrujo's ofBcial character, precludes the only reparation I would 
con.ent to receive for this attempt against my honor. It is for you, 
siv, to determine what satisfaction is due to our country and its go- 
vernment. 

I slia'il wait the time necessary to Isarn your decision before I give 
fmilier publicity to the transaction. I am, Sir, 

Your most obedient servant, 

W. JACKSON. 
Thomas Jefferson, Esquire, 
President of the United States. 

Monticello^ Sc/Jtemier 15, 180', 
Si.i. 
1 H.wE received your letters of the 7th and 9th instant,* and shall 
tue their contents in due time and place for the benefit of our country. 

• Duplicate. 



59 

As you seem sufficiently apprized that the person of the Marquis Yru- 
jo is under the safeguard of the nation, and secured by its honor against 
all violation, I need add nothing on that head. On another, however, 
I may be permitted to add that if the information respecting a let- 
ter, said to have been written by me, was meant as a sample of the 
communications proposed to be given to you, their loss will iiot be 
great. No such letter was ever written by me, by my authority, or 
■with my privity. With my acknowledgements for the commwnicauont 
1 tender vou my salutations. 

TH : JEFFERSON. 
Major William Jackson. 



NO. 2. 

FROM THE FREEMAN'S JOURNAL. 

SPANISH INTRIGUE. 

THE subjoined communication to the public from the Editor of the 
Register, is copied from that paper of last evening. We thought it 
our duty to reserve from publication, at least for a time, an oifer of 
the papers " Graviora Manent," at the office of the Freeman's 
Journal before their appearance in any newspaper. As the source, 
from which they came, was proposed to be reserved from us (ualesB 
•we agreed to publish) by the person who presented the first number at 
this office ; as there was a declaration made that we should be PAID, 
if we would publish ; as the oiferer seemed to be a foreigner, and as 
the contents appeared to be very exceptionable, coming from a foreign 
government, we gave them a reflected rejection. — The application wag 
accompanied by a circumstance, which proved the bearer to be in per- 
sonal and familiar connection with a Spanish public officer. We con- 
sidered it as OUT duty to g© further than a mere oiecided rejection ; and 
hence it was that we placed our facts and observations, in a sure and 
guarded manner, before the government of the United States, and 
paid the closest attention to the subsequent workings of the matter 
here. We were ignorant of the overture to the Register. The first 
number of " Graviora Manent,'" appeared in Relf 's paper soon after, 
with some editorial articles under the Philadelphia head, calculated to 
give fuel to the dangerous fire which foreign agents appeared to be 
lighting up among us. The United States Gazette came forward with 
the first number of the same paper, and a long introduction, co-ope- 
rating with this foreign appeal to the people in giving our Spanish busi- 
ness the most unsatisfactory appearance in the minds of our country- 
men, and a complexion and turn the most inconvenient to the ap- 
proaching negociations of our executive govemmt-nt. 



H 33 89 li 




•^ -.0 t* JJ,*. O JiC^ <.""'> -^^ ^ v»» ^^ 










^ -^CUr^^* f^ o^ 




0-' "^^^ *.',,•' aV -o 












<^ 









.0' 






















